Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Rafols, I.; Porter, A.L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Science overlay maps : a new tool for research policy and library management (2010) 0.03 
    0.028658492 = product of:
  0.057316985 = sum of:
    0.035584353 = weight(_text_:management in 3987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035584353 = score(doc=3987,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 3987, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3987)
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 3987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=3987,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3987, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3987)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    We present a novel approach to visually locate bodies of research within the sciences, both at each moment of time and dynamically. This article describes how this approach fits with other efforts to locally and globally map scientific outputs. We then show how these science overlay maps help benchmarking, explore collaborations, and track temporal changes, using examples of universities, corporations, funding agencies, and research topics. We address their conditions of application and discuss advantages, downsides, and limitations. Overlay maps especially help investigate the increasing number of scientific developments and organizations that do not fit within traditional disciplinary categories. We make these tools available online to enable researchers to explore the ongoing sociocognitive transformations of science and technology systems.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1871-1887
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps (2012) 0.02 
    0.023225334 = product of:
  0.046450667 = sum of:
    0.035584353 = weight(_text_:management in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035584353 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15925534 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047248192 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
    0.010866316 = product of:
      0.021732632 = sum of:
        0.021732632 = weight(_text_:science in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021732632 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A technique is developed using patent information available online (at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) for the generation of Google Maps. The overlays indicate both the quantity and the quality of patents at the city level. This information is relevant for research questions in technology analysis, innovation studies, and evolutionary economics, as well as economic geography. The resulting maps can also be relevant for technological innovation policies and research and development management, because the U.S. market can be considered the leading market for patenting and patent competition. In addition to the maps, the routines provide quantitative data about the patents for statistical analysis. The cities on the map are colored according to the results of significance tests. The overlays are explored for the Netherlands as a "national system of innovations" and further elaborated in two cases of emerging technologies: ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) and nanotechnology.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1442-1458
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.02 
    0.019092236 = product of:
  0.07636894 = sum of:
    0.07636894 = sum of:
      0.04436155 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04436155 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  4. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.02 
    0.017285863 = product of:
  0.06914345 = sum of:
    0.06914345 = sum of:
      0.030734586 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030734586 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.038408864 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038408864 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  5. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.02 
    0.015843935 = product of:
  0.06337574 = sum of:
    0.06337574 = sum of:
      0.031368356 = weight(_text_:science in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031368356 = score(doc=3089,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.
    Date
    24. 8.2016 17:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193
  6. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.01 
    0.012529479 = product of:
  0.050117917 = sum of:
    0.050117917 = sum of:
      0.018110527 = weight(_text_:science in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018110527 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.03200739 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03200739 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16545512 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047248192 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    29. 9.2018 11:22:09
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192
  7. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.01 
    0.0076836464 = product of:
  0.030734586 = sum of:
    0.030734586 = product of:
      0.06146917 = sum of:
        0.06146917 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06146917 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Aid
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.01 
    0.006074456 = product of:
  0.024297824 = sum of:
    0.024297824 = product of:
      0.04859565 = sum of:
        0.04859565 = weight(_text_:science in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04859565 = score(doc=3436,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801
  9. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.01 
    0.006074456 = product of:
  0.024297824 = sum of:
    0.024297824 = product of:
      0.04859565 = sum of:
        0.04859565 = weight(_text_:science in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04859565 = score(doc=1108,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309
  10. Rotolo, D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Matching Medline/PubMed data with Web of Science: A routine in R language (2015) 0.01 
    0.006074456 = product of:
  0.024297824 = sum of:
    0.024297824 = product of:
      0.04859565 = sum of:
        0.04859565 = weight(_text_:science in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04859565 = score(doc=2224,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2155-2159
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Shin, J.C.: How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts : fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines (2011) 0.01 
    0.0054894625 = product of:
  0.02195785 = sum of:
    0.02195785 = product of:
      0.0439157 = sum of:
        0.0439157 = weight(_text_:science in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0439157 = score(doc=4466,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155
  12. Zhou, P.; Su, X.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences (2010) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=3580,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1360-1376
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Persson, O.: Mapping the geography of science : distribution patterns and networks of relations among cities and institutes (2010) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 3704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=3704,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3704, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Using Google Earth, Google Maps, and/or network visualization programs such as Pajek, one can overlay the network of relations among addresses in scientific publications onto the geographic map. The authors discuss the pros and cons of various options, and provide software (freeware) for bridging existing gaps between the Science Citation Indices (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier), on the one hand, and these various visualization tools on the other. At the level of city names, the global map can be drawn reliably on the basis of the available address information. At the level of the names of organizations and institutes, there are problems of unification both in the ISI databases and with Scopus. Pajek enables a combination of visualization and statistical analysis, whereas the Google Maps and its derivatives provide superior tools on the Internet.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.8, S.1622-1634
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: Accounting for the uncertainty in the evaluation of percentile ranks (2012) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2349-2350
  15. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Heimeriks, G.; Rotolo, D.: Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations : maps and comparisons (2016) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=2781,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2781, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Using Web of Science data, portfolio analysis in terms of journal coverage can be projected onto a base map for units of analysis such as countries, cities, universities, and firms. The units of analysis under study can be compared statistically across the 10,000+ journals. The interdisciplinarity of the portfolios is measured using Rao-Stirling diversity or Zhang et?al.'s improved measure 2D3. At the country level we find regional differentiation (e.g., Latin American or Asian countries), but also a major divide between advanced and less-developed countries. Israel and Israeli cities outperform other nations and cities in terms of diversity. Universities appear to be specifically related to firms when a number of these units are exploratively compared. The instrument is relatively simple and straightforward, and one can generalize the application to any document set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS). Further instruction is provided online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio.
    Aid
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.741-748
  17. Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016) 0.01 
    0.005433158 = product of:
  0.021732632 = sum of:
    0.021732632 = product of:
      0.043465264 = sum of:
        0.043465264 = weight(_text_:science in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043465264 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1777-1778
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011) 0.01 
    0.005062047 = product of:
  0.020248188 = sum of:
    0.020248188 = product of:
      0.040496375 = sum of:
        0.040496375 = weight(_text_:science in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040496375 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146
  19. Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013) 0.01 
    0.005062047 = product of:
  0.020248188 = sum of:
    0.020248188 = product of:
      0.040496375 = sum of:
        0.040496375 = weight(_text_:science in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040496375 = score(doc=532,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
    Aid
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107
  20. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.01 
    0.005062047 = product of:
  0.020248188 = sum of:
    0.020248188 = product of:
      0.040496375 = sum of:
        0.040496375 = weight(_text_:science in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040496375 = score(doc=3231,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.124457374 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047248192 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100

Authors

Themes